The regulatory hurdles for bringing Hyperliquid to the U.S. market

The core difficulty lies in the fact that U.S. regulatory architecture was never designed to accommodate offshore-style crypto perpetuals. According to Ebersole, the process requires more than just securing a single registration. Regulators must first determine if existing laws grant them sufficient authority to oversee these products, then build a framework that addresses trading, clearing, and intermediary requirements. This process is further complicated by the need to split jurisdiction between the SEC and the CFTC based on the underlying assets, mirroring the post-Dodd-Frank oversight structure.

While the administration has signaled interest in creating a compliant route, the legal landscape has shifted following the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision, which curtailed the Chevron doctrine. Agencies can no longer rely on broad interpretations of ambiguous statutes to claim jurisdiction, making congressional action a more stable—though slower—alternative. Should a functional framework emerge, it would not be exclusive to Hyperliquid; platforms like Coinbase and Kraken would likely gain the same legal standing to offer similar products, effectively opening the U.S. market to a category that has historically operated offshore.